Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Judy Taylor]

DAVEH: > So where's the truth?  Judy posted a pretty compelling > argument that was diametrically opposed to DavidM's > comments.   Which is correct?   All you have to do, Dave, is read more history from both sides.  What you find is that many people spin the facts however they want to spin it.  The article Judy shared is way off the chart in spin against Calvin.  It ignores important facts, and spins known facts ascribing motive to Calvin that is unwarranted.  For example, yes, Servetus read Calvin's Institutes and gave Calvin a copy of it all marked up with his criticisms.  The article tries to spin this fact into Calvin getting personally upset with such and that he was filled with a vile anger and hatred toward Servetus for his criticism. The truth is that Calvin worked and worked to try and help Servetus correct his errors, but Servetus was uncooperative.  Servetus challenges Calvin to a debate but then does not show up for his own debate?  Come on.  Servetus does not engage Calvin, but rather publishes his criticisms without Calvin's response?  There is a lot more to the story to consider than personal vindictiveness.  Get all the facts for yourself and make up your own mind. Still, we will all approach the subject with certain assumptions.   David following is the conclusion of Schaff? at the website you directed me to: It was not inconsistent with this design, if he (Calvin) aided, as it would seem, in bringing the book of Servetus to the notice of the Roman inquisition in Lyons. He procured his arrest on his arrival in Geneva. He showed personal bitterness towards him during the trial. Servetus was a stranger in Geneva, and had committed no offence in that city. Calvin should have permitted him quietly to depart, or simply caused his expulsion from the territory of Geneva, as in the case of Bolsec. This would have been sufficient punishment. If he had recommended expulsion instead of decapitation, he would have saved himself the reproaches of posterity, which will never forget and never forgive the burning of Servetus.  In the interest of impartial history we must condemn the intolerance of the victor as well as the error of the victim, and admire in both the loyalty to conscientious conviction. Heresy is an error; intolerance, a sin; persecution, a crime. If I had time, I would go through and point out all the falsehoods and the false assumptions in that article that Judy shared.  They are readily apparent to me based upon my past reading on the subject, but I don't have a lot of time right now.  Read Schaff for yourself, and Foxe's Book of Martyrs.  I think they will help provide a more balanced perspective on the issue.  Also go to the sources that Schaff references.   Peace be with you. David Miller.